We are nice to you. We recognize your license even though you have no training requirement.
You won't reciprocate and you don't recognize ours--- though our folks are at least recipients of some
training and have demonstrated that they know which end the bullet comes out of.

Time to dismount from the high horse.

lol so we' 're back to this: we have demonstrated no need for mandatory training.....as has been discussed. Are you just assuming we did not get training or are untrained? If so, please show me some data.

This has been the whole crux of the discussion, lol.

January 16th, 2013, 05:09 PM

dldeuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by velo99

I actually enjoyed my class. It`s not often that you get that many gun people in one place, discussing the issues of chl. My instructor is an active duty sherriff, who is dedicated to his profession. He regularly attends meeting and conventions as a LEO and instructor. I felt pretty confident he was quailfied and unbiased in his presentation. He had short discussion periods between some of the subjects and always had time to answer a question. I still think an 8 hour course is preferrable
As far as the guy at the gas pump, leave your gun on the seat within easy reach. If you take it into the store, SHTF and you shoot someone you will be in big trouble.
Remember we are supposed to follow the law and be above the rest of the fray as chl holders.

I think it's great you enjoyed your class. I've got no problem with you having that commercial service available to you. Personally, I thought my class was an insult to my intelligence. It was a waste of my time and money. There wasn't anything useful that was discussed that I either didn't already know or that I hadn't already read with only a couple of google searches and light reading. Most of all, I wasted an enormous amount of time listening to this ex-police officer shoot the **** obviously filling the time mandated by the state.

Fundamentally, I don't need anyone to educate me on morality and basic human decency for me not to go around murdering people or brandishing a gun threatening people. I also don't need the government telling me to be aware that a gun is potentially a dangerous device and that if I'm not careful, I could hurt someone with it. That's the bottom line. A lot of folks presume everyone else is immoral and stupid and that we need the government to force feed them with that like they were children. If they aren't willing to be force fed by the nanny state, they believe the government should have the power to strip them of their God given rights. Although men may be endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, they believe they know better.

January 16th, 2013, 05:49 PM

Hopyard

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9MMare

lol so we' 're back to this: we have demonstrated no need for mandatory training.....as has been discussed. Are you just assuming we did not get training or are untrained? If so, please show me some data.

This has been the whole crux of the discussion, lol.

I'm assuming you are the exception among the WA license holders.

January 16th, 2013, 06:08 PM

9MMare

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I'm assuming you are the exception among the WA license holders.

I didn't say me, I said we. From your statements, you were implying Washingtonians were less trained than Texans.Based on what, our safety records? If so, please show me.

Again, just because we don't have mandatory training requirements doesn't mean we are less trained or less safe permit holders. There is nothing to indicate it, if so lets see the comparison.

January 16th, 2013, 07:50 PM

dldeuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by farronwolf

If you want me to say, yes, I support mandatory training for CHL's, I will. Are you happy? Or would you be happier if we had no mandatory training and no CHL like it was before 1995? Because that is the reality of the situation, without the mandatory training there would be no CHL, and I prefer we have CHL in Texas.

Which would you prefer? I know you would prefer no training to get the CHL. Guess what that is pretty much fantasy, you are free to have all of it you want.

To add on to your running ad homenim, this is what you call a false dilemma. This whole thread is about a third option, immediately available to us, and that is to pass this bill and reduce the amount of training required to get the CHL.

January 16th, 2013, 07:55 PM

dldeuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by velo99

As far as the guy at the gas pump, leave your gun on the seat within easy reach. If you take it into the store, SHTF and you shoot someone you will be in big trouble.
Remember we are supposed to follow the law and be above the rest of the fray as chl holders.

I'd be in big trouble as compared to being dead? We are supposed to follow laws, and part of the rule of law is that a law that is not constitutional is not a valid law.

January 16th, 2013, 08:04 PM

Hopyard

Quote:

Originally Posted by dldeuce

I'd be in big trouble as compared to being dead? We are supposed to follow laws, and part of the rule of law is that a law that is not constitutional is not a valid law.

When the law got through with you you'd be wishing you were dead.

Part II___ The TX law is constitutional. Constitutional under the TX constitution and per the fine print written by
Scalia in the Heller decision. So that one is a red herring issue. We as individuals don't get to decide
what is and what is not constitutional; we can voice our opinion or our disagreement, but our opinion is nothing
in comparison to the opinion of the Big 9.

January 16th, 2013, 08:06 PM

TheConcealer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

I'm assuming you are the exception among the WA license holders.

Nope, there is also me.

January 16th, 2013, 08:14 PM

dldeuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by velo99

Sun,
Let me explain my position. Like it or not we have to play the game to exercise our 2A in some cases. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am saying at this point I feel blessed to have been permitted by the state of Texas to carry a concealed weapon. I support the right to self defense in the home without interference. I support having your choice of weapon as defined by common use. I don't support government intrusion into our privacy or registration of our weapons.
When I got my CHL I was green as could be but I wanted to take my RESPONSIBILITY as a CHL holder seriously. I started surfing reading & training. I could be one of those who got a permit does nothing with it and is clueless by choice. Those are the holders who will fail when shtf. They might survive , they might not. They might kill the BG, they might kill the little old lady across the street. IMO I wouldn't want one covering my back.
This is not a game this is not some bs my gun is bigger & my way is better. This is each one of us on this forum contributing & learning to the level he feels comfortable. This forum & the other hundred just like it are the militia.
Together we are strong. Together we are 2A.

Why not say whether it's right or wrong? If you support it, and you believe Texans should have to get mandatory training, go through weeks of bureaucracy and spend well over $200, why not say so? If you believe that if folks don't go through all that, they should be denied one of their most fundamental rights, why not say so? If you believe that, why not say so and offer us rational and logical arguments in support of that? Why not be upfront and honest about it?

On the other hand, if you believe Texans shouldn't have to go through all of this bureaucracy; if you believe Texans shouldn't have to be "blessed" with the privilege of being granted a CHL from the state in order to exercise their God given unalienable right, then why not speak up clearly for freedom?

January 16th, 2013, 09:09 PM

dldeuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopyard

When the law got through with you you'd be wishing you were dead.

So now you're suggesting that a person should just be willing to die to comply with these laws? Do you think a person is morally obliged to die rather than violate this precious law? You see, that is exactly what these laws say, and in that you support them, that's what you are saying. That's why these laws are unconstitutional. I have a God given right to survive.

Quote:

Part II___ The TX law is constitutional. Constitutional under the TX constitution and per the fine print written by
Scalia in the Heller decision. So that one is a red herring issue. We as individuals don't get to decide
what is and what is not constitutional; we can voice our opinion or our disagreement, but our opinion is nothing
in comparison to the opinion of the Big 9.

That's funny. The more you speak, the more you sound just like Andrew Cuomo. The gun grabbers have been making that argument all over the country. Lot's of state lawyers have been making it too, and they've been losing in case after case. Nothing in the dicta of the Heller case indicates that any law on the books will survive. All it says is that the Heller case doesn't make any specific ruling on those laws. On the other hand, the holdings of the Heller case do indicate fundamental principals that will apply to every gun law on the books. Just like in the Illinois case, courts are bound by those holdings, and they are ruling against laws just like what we have in Texas.

The biggest error and the most revealing thing you said is that the people aren't the final arbiter over what power the government does or doesn't have. I'd say that's the root of our disagreement.

January 16th, 2013, 09:38 PM

dldeuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9MMare

I didn't say me, I said we. From your statements, you were implying Washingtonians were less trained than Texans.Based on what, our safety records? If so, please show me.

Again, just because we don't have mandatory training requirements doesn't mean we are less trained or less safe permit holders. There is nothing to indicate it, if so lets see the comparison.

What's funny about this line of the debate is that by far the bulk of gun owners in Texas are folks that don't have CHLs. They have guns at home, and they defend their homes every day and have been for a couple of hundred years. Guess what? They're subject to the same laws as CHL holders. Not the administrative ones like what you have to do to maintain and qualify for the CHL, but the ones that say you can't murder and threaten people with guns. Guess what else? No training required. Plus for all the prohibited places laws, I'm curious how our friends here can justify those laws given the effectiveness of all their mandatory training on the Section 9 laws on crimes against people?

Let's ask our friends here if Texas should have laws mandating training, gun registration, and bureaucracy for all these folks that are using guns to defend their home. Surely they will all agree for the same reasoning.

January 16th, 2013, 09:49 PM

dldeuce

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9MMare

lol so we' 're back to this: we have demonstrated no need for mandatory training.....as has been discussed. Are you just assuming we did not get training or are untrained? If so, please show me some data.

This has been the whole crux of the discussion, lol.

We demonstrated the strong government interest for mandatory training. It was a popular idea. Their interest was to politically appease a large and vocal minority in order to continue to deny millions of people their most fundamental right. There is no other rational explanation.

January 16th, 2013, 09:58 PM

farronwolf

Quote:

Originally Posted by dldeuce

To add on to your running ad homenim, this is what you call a false dilemma. This whole thread is about a third option, immediately available to us, and that is to pass this bill and reduce the amount of training required to get the CHL.

The third option still requires mandatory training, which you are 100% against. I started the thread so I know exactly what it is about, however you are the one who has spent the majority of your time posting, not about the reduced time but about how wrong any mandatory training is, and the lack of ability to carry without a license. How all of that is unconstitutional.

You certainly didn't learn anything about ego states during your CHL class did you, or which one is most effective means of communication. :rolleyes:

January 16th, 2013, 10:07 PM

Hopyard

Quote:

Originally Posted by dldeuce

What's funny about this line of the debate is that by far the bulk of gun owners in Texas are folks that don't have CHLs. They have guns at home, and they defend their homes every day and have been for a couple of hundred years. Guess what? They're subject to the same laws as CHL holders. Not the administrative ones like what you have to do to maintain and qualify for the CHL, but the ones that say you can't murder and threaten people with guns. Guess what else? No training required. Plus for all the prohibited places laws, I'm curious how our friends here can justify those laws given the effectiveness of all their mandatory training on the Section 9 laws on crimes against people?

Let's ask our friends here if Texas should have laws mandating training, gun registration, and bureaucracy for all these folks that are using guns to defend their home. Surely they will all agree for the same reasoning.

No need to guess. Like it or not the second they step out of their car with gun on their person they have committed
a crime--with few exceptions limited to going to and from their place of business/home, as per the old Travel law.

Like it or not, if you want to conceal carry in TX, and do it legally, you need a CHL. Car carry is no substitute.

Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

January 17th, 2013, 07:41 AM

velo99

Duece
Not everyone possesses your level of expertise. I studied the regs before I went to the class. I read a book and prepared myself as well as I could & still managed to learn more specifics during the class.
I do feel a class should be mandatory so that everyone is at least exposed to the laws & show a minimum of gun handling proficiency. Discussion of constitutional rights are an opinionated subject in some cases. The SCOTUS generally rules in the correct.manner. I don't know exactly how to explain my thoughts on 2A in relation to concealed carry. The right to SD in the home should be infallible. Carrying in public is another matter involving people other than those you're responsible for. That's where I see the need for a minimum amount of training.